I've played 8 different F2Ps over the course of the last year...In all of those games I hit a level wall where the EXP itself slowed down to a crawl, trying to push me into buying items at game stores...I spoke to many players who surrendered their wallets to buying EXP Potions and other common islands....and they have told me that playing those F2Ps monthly is costing more at times than paying subscription fees in P2Ps.
In regards to MMORPG Quests...All of the MMORPGs I've played be them F2P or P2P, the quests all boil down to the same 4 - 5 types of quests rehashed 1000s of ways in wall of texts. Quests are:
Hunting Quests //Quests we hunt down one or more targets
Exploration Quests //Quests where we are sent to meet someone
Delivery Quests // Quests where we must find and deliver something
Objective Quests // Quests where success/failure is based on the life of another target that either works in Defense or Offense. ^_^
My problem runs with no matter how many of these quests you do, you never really become part of the world in its context. The game doesn't really include you as part of the world...it just rewards you for completing quests. Its like me living on the Earth and being born on the Earth and none of my work getting recognition and no one truly knows my name, personality and attitude...they just say "oh here is your pay, go home"
I've already stated that all an MMORPG needs to survive monthly is around .0033% of monthly subscription fees...people know this and its why MMORPG saturation is everywhere. In fact F2P games and donation systems are similar....in both the company always makes a profit.
Before you write an MMORPG article referencing money and profits, try to set up your own private MMORPG server on a donation system...You will find yourself if you run the game well always making 2 - 4x more than what you ask for. Imagine large scale corporations that have business and economics majors.
The main issue I have with F2P is its not F2P, part of the game is, but part of it is not. Commonly the part of value (i.e. that you would pay for) is not in the F2P part soooooo my conception of them is that they shakle the items of value that would drive me to continue to play. Leaving the less appealing portion for me to waste my time in.
I'll ask again, is there a way to filter out Richard's articles from my email alerts of general articles? Im tired of reading his garbage and Im tired of being spammed about it. If I have to unsubscribe from this sire entirely to stop his inane spam I will, but I'd rather not.
Maybe at some point Richard will write an article that talks about a small group of F2P games and name them and give great details or exciting advantages it has over X sub game.
Maybe at some point this column wont be filled with so much general talk. Even the cited single example to break a rule didn't give an example but an opinion. Your very first misconception wasn't even proven wrong when you could easily have done a little homework to cite it.
As for Beau, I like him just because he said "The proof in the pudding comes from the eating". Mention a delicious treat and I like you.
Richard just gives me something to complain about. I guess he has his use.
I question some of the assumptions going into this piece. This idea that a lot of people don't think F2P games make money came from where exactly? If they didn't make any money, that would mean no one is using their cash shops. If no one needs to use their cash shops, then $7,000 dollar items wouldn't make such a splash and there wouldn't be people saying these games are little more than a scam since scams typically require a person to lose money.
I am glad we're not seeing an endless stream of F2P is better than P2P articles like we used to, but I am not sure let's attack people who don' tlike F2P and address over generalization arguments most people don't give is a better approach.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
The real nuts and bolts of the issue boils down to this....
Subscription based games make thier money off of simply getting users to enjoy the game well enough to want to subscribe and to keep subscribed for month after month. Once you pay your entry fee (subscription) they don't care what you do in the environment as long as you are having fun and not disrupting the experience for other players.
F2P games need to find a way to "monitize" thier users or they can't stay in business. So they are not just concerned with getting people in the door to enjoy the game. They are concerned with influencing peoples behavior ONCE they get in the game to make RMT purchases. They want you to enjoy the game sure...BUT they DON'T want you to enjoy it TOO much if you aren't spending any money. In fact, thier incentive is to keep pushing you to make purchases as much as you can possibly tolerate without alienating you to the point where you will simply get frustrated and walk away. Pushing you right up to that line is how they maximize thier proffits. Those factors definately play into the design of the venue....sometimes in problematic ways. It's the same sort of tightrope that Casino's walk....and they use many of the same sort of psychological tricks to make that happen.
There is nothing inherently wrong or evil about that....as long as you know up front that's what your walking into. However it's alot tougher proposition for a Dev to not step over that line...then it is when designing a pure subscription based game with no cash shop.....
And frankly alot of people don't like F2P/Cash Shop games for the same reason they don't like Casino's. They don't want to go into an entertainment venue worrying about how much they have to spend....or how much play they can afford on thier budget ....or be aware of all the stupid little psych tricks the House has to keep you spending. They just want to relax and forget about all that...just enjoy the venue however much they feel like without needing to keep tabs on budget.
Basicaly in a subscription based game.... once you pay your entry fee you don't need to worry about anything but having fun.
In a F2P game... you need to worry about how much you are spending WHILE you are having fun. Nothing wrong with that if it doesn't detract from your fun....however for ALOT of people it simply does...PERIOD.
There are a lot of good things involved with every f2p game I've played. Quests are a stupid thing to talk about, though, because every mmo bases their quests on the same principles. As was said, there are a vast amount of mmogs out there... from RTS to action to RPG (casual and otherwise) to sports to tournement. There is just far more variety. I've enjoyed a lot more of F2P games than I have P2P games because the F2P ones don't ever let me down. The reason is because I don't have to pay for them. P2P games might give you a little week or so of a trial, but a lot of them beef that initial content up and fall flat right after that. If I can see myself reaching the end of a F2P game, I'll give them money because I like their product.
F2P forever until you feel like you need to take advantage of everything they have to offer... then pay for it. That's all there is to it. If you don't feel like you need to take advantage of every part of the game... then don't. The only thing you lost was time, but if you played it at all, you had fun so what's your problem? And since you're playing a game anyway... you aren't really doing anything important.
I do agree that it shouldn't only be cash-shops, but it should also include a monthly plan and little ways to obtain at least a small amount of shop cash without paying for it. Then no one can bitch.
I don't play an mmo for storyline quests, though, I save that for single player games.
I am neither for or against either model, as they have their own pros and cons (especiallys as having had to consult for business options for both). However, I have a single post to make, which is based on the definition of the terms pay-to-play and free-to-play.
Under the current guise of the industry, pay-to-play means a game which involves a monthly subscription in order to access the service provided, which allows you to play the game. Oppositely, free-to-play means a game in which you can play and access the service free of charge. Neither model takes into account any of the following: internet connection, amount of in game content, accessibility to in game content, etc.
My reason for bringing this up is this: people will say a free-to-play title really isn't free to play. My argument is that the service is free to use, and hence, free to play. However, due to mechanics or design choices, the game may be geared towards having players pay to enchance their means of progression, or to gain access to more content. As I said before, neither of these are included under the service itself. The same is true of many pay-to-play titles which include expansions, including World of Warcraft, old LOTRO, Final Fantasy XI, etc. These games charge for their service, but require extra payment for access to more content.
Now, carry on with the rest of your arguments. But please remember what "free-to-play" and "pay-to-play" actually mean, in the context of the industry.
The real nuts and bolts of the issue boils down to this....
Basicaly in a subscription based game.... once you pay your entry fee you don't need to worry about anything but having fun.
In a F2P game... you need to worry about how much you are spending WHILE you are having fun. Nothing wrong with that if it doesn't detract from your fun....however for ALOT of people it simply does...PERIOD.
Interesting take, one that I can't really argue against at this point. What would you make of the hybrid models though? We have two breeds showing up now. First you have the full sub games with cash-shops attached to them ranging from stuff from the get go STO or 25 dollar mounts for WoW. Then you have the hybrid kind of by design games showing up, mosty with turbine, LOTRO and DDO, where you can sub or do this F2P game thing but now EQ2 is getting in on it, though they are trying to this quasi separate but equal thing which I am skeptical would work. Separate but equal has never worked in the past... ever.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
F2P forever until you feel like you need to take advantage of everything they have to offer... then pay for it. That's all there is to it. If you don't feel like you need to take advantage of every part of the game... then don't. The only thing you lost was time, but if you played it at all, you had fun so what's your problem? And since you're playing a game anyway... you aren't really doing anything important.
You're right about one thing in this quote: you don't have to pay for anything in a F2P if you don't want to. However, it's been pointed out several times, within this thread even, that F2P game designers have every intention of making those cash shop purchases necessary. A good example, as I've been kicking the title around for a couple weeks, is Allods Online. They certainly don't force me to buy a damn thing. They do reduce the damage I do by a large percentage at level twenty, however, and there is conveniently an item I can buy in the cash shop to nearly revert this penalty. The same goes for the bags they sell, the kind you need for your inventory. You can't obtain them in-game, and they aren't necessary to play at all, but if you don't want to run back and forth between NPC's to off load your greys and complete quest objectives, or even play what would be considered the "end game", you're going to need to drop twenty dollars a bag (at the most) for five bag slots. That's a hundred bucks for full-slot bags, which would almost buy me seven months of a subscription MMO that comes with all of the bells and whistles. I'm not even getting into the other miscellaneous buff items and potions they sell in their cash shop, all of which are as necessary as the player makes them, but they exist as so the designers can make your "free" experience worse, in hopes that you'll shell out some money to get your damage output back to normal, or to unlock abilities otherwise incapable of being used, when you get frustrated enough.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
The real nuts and bolts of the issue boils down to this....
Basicaly in a subscription based game.... once you pay your entry fee you don't need to worry about anything but having fun.
In a F2P game... you need to worry about how much you are spending WHILE you are having fun. Nothing wrong with that if it doesn't detract from your fun....however for ALOT of people it simply does...PERIOD.
Interesting take, one that I can't really argue against at this point. What would you make of the hybrid models though? We have two breeds showing up now. First you have the full sub games with cash-shops attached to them ranging from stuff from the get go STO or 25 dollar mounts for WoW. Then you have the hybrid kind of by design games showing up, mosty with turbine, LOTRO and DDO, where you can sub or do this F2P game thing but now EQ2 is getting in on it, though they are trying to this quasi separate but equal thing which I am skeptical would work. Separate but equal has never worked in the past... ever.
Nesrie,
I'm a little leery of those just because of the amount of temptation it gives the Dev's to try to squeeze money out of the subcription players in the cash shop ON TOP of thier subscription fee.
I'm a long time player of LOTRO and I was very upset by Turbines move... that's NOT the service I signed up to play when I purchased the game. They say it won't really effect the current game play experience.... but we'll see what actualy happens when the rubber meets the road.
Ultimately it's going to come down to how much the RMT model intrudes on the game-play experience of the regular subscription based player. I think it's POSSIBLE for a Dev to create a model that doesn't.... but that requires ALOT of self-discipline and good judgement on the Dev...and not just the actual designers but the people making the business decisions at those companies which influence design.... and lets be frank, MOST of those people simply don't have the judgement and self-discipline as well as long term thinking to refrain from going for the quick cash grab.
We see way too many executives willing to trash thier brands reputation for a quick one-quarter proffit boost outside of the entertainment venue...... do we really doubt that the same people will behave differently when thet run a Development House?
Necessity, who is the mother of invention. - Plato
Things do not change, just because... and especially in business. People will stick with the know, rather than risk the unknown, often to their own folly. The fact that we are now seeing a rather large movement supporting F2P in the western market is proof enough that business believes that it MUST (not optional) change, or else lose out.
F2P is becoming mainstream... and in doing so, it is opening gaming to a larger audience. There will always be a hardcore P2P group, and companies will provide games for them. However, the larger, more casual F2P group will no longer be excluded from the market, and in doing so, companies will profit.
To a certain exent, this is similar to the move made by WoW. They change the target demographic, and in doing so were able to grow the market from 100's of thousands to millions... There is no going back from that, just like there is no going back from this.
You can sugar coat F2P all you want but the fact is that concept of a free game with a cash shop means that the developers have to make the core gameplay painful enough to compel people to spend money. That might mean leveling up takes forever without buying xp boosters or quests take longer without the sword of +10 pwning from the cash store or some other mechanic that makes the game "not fun". The game's continued existence relies on them intentionally gimping the game to get people to fork over money.
I'd much rather play a subscription game where the developers have to focus on making the game as enjoyable as possible to get people to resubscribe every month.
We see way too many executives willing to trash thier brands reputation for a quick one-quarter proffit boost outside of the entertainment venue...... do we really doubt that the same people will behave differently when thet run a Development House?
I like your comparison, at least I think it was you that used a casino comparison. While I fall onto one side as far as preference goes, I don't have an issue with the mis-named free to play so much as I am a big picture sort of person. I look at the game, assume that I will like it, look at the price of getting into the game in its entirity and then wind up walking away before starting mostly because of that. I don't really play games I don't intend to get the most out of. I am not that bored. and have plenty of other things to do. That's just me of course and realize others take different approaches.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
Richard, you have beat this topic to death. Not everyone is going to agree with you, especially when you rarely talk about the GAMES you are supposed to be covering and almost exclusively focus on talking about why people who disagree with you are wrong.
Pure crap again.
/sign
* I read most of what Jon Wood writes * He needs more bullet points though
This argument will finally end when no self-respecting game publisher will allow a developer to release a game using the subscription payment business model. The remaining subscription games will be indie-studio small-fry, nibbling plankton in the pond.
Much like most publishers currently don't let the developers innovate, simply because unfamiliar design choices and features confuse the majority of would-be players, who are perfectly happy to go back to something familiar and simple when confused.
Regardless of what we as players think, the industry trend is against us, and the reason is one word only: money.
Necessity, who is the mother of invention. - Plato
Things do not change, just because... and especially in business. People will stick with the know, rather than risk the unknown, often to their own folly. The fact that we are now seeing a rather large movement supporting F2P in the western market is proof enough that business believes that it MUST (not optional) change, or else lose out.
F2P is becoming mainstream... and in doing so, it is opening gaming to a larger audience. There will always be a hardcore P2P group, and companies will provide games for them. However, the larger, more casual F2P group will no longer be excluded from the market, and in doing so, companies will profit.
To a certain exent, this is similar to the move made by WoW. They change the target demographic, and in doing so were able to grow the market from 100's of thousands to millions... There is no going back from that, just like there is no going back from this.
Disagree with underlined. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but don't forget that Greed is the father.
This shift in recent years isn't necessarily indicative of a choice between profit or failure - where business is concerned, it can just as easily indicate a choice between profit or potentially higher profit. And when looking for profit, a business could hardly be blamed for deciding to take a pre-existing game only in need of tweaking and translation, set upon a psychological model that encourages spending beyond a standard subscription amount.
But that doesn't make it "necessity" in the least.
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs: That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
If a game pulls in large numbers of non-paying users who enjoy themselves and also see lots of others doing so, they'll stick around longer. And that raises the probability they'll reach into their pocketbooks.
I think the above quote makes a good point. The smart f2p companies that are capable of making a game rich and detailed enough to hold peoples' interest longterm will think like this. They will also work very hard not to get a reputation as greedy bastards by ramping up difficulty and stifling xp gain in order to sell more cashshop items.
The stupid or 'get in, get the money, get out fast' companies are the ones who give all of these games their terrible reputation (except for the Korean grinder companies who honestly just haven't figured out that people in other countries don't like that style of play).
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
In addition to the many replies in retort of Richards I leave this :
We are not seeing a industry shift towards the F2P model, what we are seeing is more start-ups figuring out that they too can produce a Free to play title and people will actually pay threw the nose to win. There are only two major p2p titles that are going f2p and neither of them would do so if the game wasn't allready in a decline. So the over-the-top statements can stop, the industry is not shifting more towards free to play.
The sky is not falling, I'm sure the long-time mmo gamers here remember the large influx of Indie Dev titles we had 2-3 years ago, perhaps only one or two lasted longer than a few months. The same thing will happen with the F2P market, it will become over-saturated with poor quality titles, larger dev teams will continue to avoid the model for all but their declining titles, and ultimately it will collapse.
All F2P games require spending a lot of money to reach high levels
This may or may not be true, but that not the point. All players should start with exactly the same opportunities ingame, and never should a portion of the Player base be able to acquire items or ingame currency from out of game sources such as MT, Cash Shops, or Stores. Just because a Store or Cash Shop is available to all does not mean all will benefit from it, therefore it unbalances the game in fundamental ways. All items and gold should be acquired through normal gameplay, no other way.
The quests in F2P games consist mainly of "kill 10 rats" quests, except it's more like "kill 100 rats"
This is not always true. Many F2P games have very good quest systems with unique and challenging quests.
Most F2P games are rushed into America, resulting in broken English translations
Not always true either, some have very good translations. That's not a problem for me even if the translation is less than perfect. The World has been dealing with having to learn English because we Americans say they must, it's time for us Americans to stop being lazy and learn other languages frankly.
Cash shops encourage developers to work only on cash shop content
Yes for the most part this will be true, or become true the longer a MMO is available with a Cash Shop. This is basic human "business nature", basic capitalism. Deny it all you want but I know better because I have seen it not just in MMOs but everywhere in real life.
A subscription based MMO with NO Cash Shop/Store/MT avoids this because the focus of design remains with a drive to make the entire MMO better to better attract and entice Players to subscribe.
Those are my answers to the questions posed.
It is time the SUITs were kicked out of MMO gaming, they do not care about the games the way the Players AND the Developers themselves do, they only care about profits, and any MMO designed for profit first is garbage as far as I am concerned. Quality design for all Players must be the primary design drive/focus, and equality for ingame opportunity and activity for all Players, or I want nothing to do with the MMO in question. If the SUITs stay I am gone as a customer.
I will not play or purchase any MMO F2P or P2P with a Cash Shop, a "Store", or Microtransactions of any kind or type(including PLEX).
MMORPG.COM ... STOP TRYING TO CONVINCE US F2P IS A GOOD IDEA. I PERSONALLY CONSIDER IT INSULTING FOR YOU TO EVEN SUGGEST IT!
I am the Player that wonders... "What the %#*& just happened?!" ............... "I Believe... There should be NO financial connection or portals between the Real World and the Virtual in MMOs. " __Ever Present Cockroach of the MMO Verses__ ...scurrying to and fro... .munching on bits of garbage... always under foot...
Hmmm, I wonder if Beau's 5 will address the 'All F2P games are crap' misconception, unless of course it isn't a misconception at all but just the truth.
I'm afraid when F2P games are stacked up against subscription based games they just simply cannot compete on quality of gameplay, I can't put my finger on exactly why it is, maybe it is simply down to the subscription game developers not having to develope the gameplay mechanics and content with the goal being to drive revenue growth at the 'micro' level, in effect they are free to design the game for fun.
However, I'm a realist, it is obvious that there is a growing trend for 'Western' MMO's that are failing to adopt the F2P model in an effort to cling to life. I'll be the first to admit that with LOTRO and now EQ2 going F2P these are good quality games with lots of fun content. I will be watching to see if these games manage to stay fun after the transition to F2P or if the devs end up forced to slice and dice the fun out of the game in an effort to sell it back to us in bite sized chunks. In effect butchering these games and turning them into the 'Asian F2P grinders' that are so terrible.
But you know, even in this age of F2P, I would still opt for the subscription method that these so called F2P games offer, I'm more interested to see if as a 'subscriber' to one of these games, will my gameplay suffer as a result of the move to F2P. Lets put it this way, if I find myself playing LOTRO as a subscriber and I'm excluded from content, find the need to buy potions, put at a disadvantage in PvP or find the need to use the ingame rip off stores then I'll be cancelling as quick as you like.
In effect, whilst they offer me the ability to still subscribe without affecting my gameplay then fine, as soon as a gameplay becomes infected and diluted thanks to F2P then I'm out of there.
Do you lay awake at night worrying that some people might not like a F2P game. I dont care for them. No matter how much opinion and bending the facts you do to support your opinions you are not going to change anyone's mind about F2P.
Give it a rest.
I know you like them, I don't. Why do you care ?? You remind me of politicians who try to demonize anyone who does not agree with them.
As was stated before why dont you pick a free to play game and give us facts about it. Quit using a broad brush. Be specific. Maybe pick a F2P game each week and show us with examples why it is so good. Give us examples of a f2p game that you think proves they would worth playing. Use facts.
"This is a fairly common example of the kind of over-generalization some anti-F2Ps engage in to support their personal agendas. "
Throw the term "liberal media" into that line and I would have sworn it came direct from Sarah Palin's mouth, and sadly that was the vibe from the whole article.
This didn't see so much about clearing up misconceptions, but yet another article (like pretty much all of yours are) where your anger at those who aren't blinded by the love for F2P titles like you are, spills over into writings.
The only anger I see is on your part Wolf. BTW, Palin isn't concerned with over-generalization. The concern is with selective, not objective, focus.
OH..WAKE UP CALL...Richard is the free zone writer, not the PTP writer.
There are many, *cough* * Aion* that have thier share of kill way more than 100 rats..one is get 150 items from mobs in a specific area...not all mobs will dropthe item so the total is more like 300 kills after which there are 2 more pieces to get through. All this with gankers who often have so many levels on you that you can hardly hit them.
Botome line is: If its something you enjoy and look forward to getting into each night its a winner..ftp or ptp. If its not, move on.
A hard line towards FTP,PTP, people from certain counties,religions, sex is a waste of time that will result in one missing out on much of life.
Once again, focusing on who doesn't like F2P rather than writing for who likes F2P. Why not pick a F2P game or publisher each week and write about it? Wouldn't that be a pleasant experience for you to later share with your audience?
Comments
I've played 8 different F2Ps over the course of the last year...In all of those games I hit a level wall where the EXP itself slowed down to a crawl, trying to push me into buying items at game stores...I spoke to many players who surrendered their wallets to buying EXP Potions and other common islands....and they have told me that playing those F2Ps monthly is costing more at times than paying subscription fees in P2Ps.
In regards to MMORPG Quests...All of the MMORPGs I've played be them F2P or P2P, the quests all boil down to the same 4 - 5 types of quests rehashed 1000s of ways in wall of texts. Quests are:
Hunting Quests //Quests we hunt down one or more targets
Exploration Quests //Quests where we are sent to meet someone
Delivery Quests // Quests where we must find and deliver something
Objective Quests // Quests where success/failure is based on the life of another target that either works in Defense or Offense. ^_^
My problem runs with no matter how many of these quests you do, you never really become part of the world in its context. The game doesn't really include you as part of the world...it just rewards you for completing quests. Its like me living on the Earth and being born on the Earth and none of my work getting recognition and no one truly knows my name, personality and attitude...they just say "oh here is your pay, go home"
I've already stated that all an MMORPG needs to survive monthly is around .0033% of monthly subscription fees...people know this and its why MMORPG saturation is everywhere. In fact F2P games and donation systems are similar....in both the company always makes a profit.
Before you write an MMORPG article referencing money and profits, try to set up your own private MMORPG server on a donation system...You will find yourself if you run the game well always making 2 - 4x more than what you ask for. Imagine large scale corporations that have business and economics majors.
The main issue I have with F2P is its not F2P, part of the game is, but part of it is not. Commonly the part of value (i.e. that you would pay for) is not in the F2P part soooooo my conception of them is that they shakle the items of value that would drive me to continue to play. Leaving the less appealing portion for me to waste my time in.
I'll ask again, is there a way to filter out Richard's articles from my email alerts of general articles? Im tired of reading his garbage and Im tired of being spammed about it. If I have to unsubscribe from this sire entirely to stop his inane spam I will, but I'd rather not.
Maybe at some point Richard will write an article that talks about a small group of F2P games and name them and give great details or exciting advantages it has over X sub game.
Maybe at some point this column wont be filled with so much general talk. Even the cited single example to break a rule didn't give an example but an opinion. Your very first misconception wasn't even proven wrong when you could easily have done a little homework to cite it.
As for Beau, I like him just because he said "The proof in the pudding comes from the eating". Mention a delicious treat and I like you.
Richard just gives me something to complain about. I guess he has his use.
I question some of the assumptions going into this piece. This idea that a lot of people don't think F2P games make money came from where exactly? If they didn't make any money, that would mean no one is using their cash shops. If no one needs to use their cash shops, then $7,000 dollar items wouldn't make such a splash and there wouldn't be people saying these games are little more than a scam since scams typically require a person to lose money.
I am glad we're not seeing an endless stream of F2P is better than P2P articles like we used to, but I am not sure let's attack people who don' tlike F2P and address over generalization arguments most people don't give is a better approach.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
The real nuts and bolts of the issue boils down to this....
Subscription based games make thier money off of simply getting users to enjoy the game well enough to want to subscribe and to keep subscribed for month after month. Once you pay your entry fee (subscription) they don't care what you do in the environment as long as you are having fun and not disrupting the experience for other players.
F2P games need to find a way to "monitize" thier users or they can't stay in business. So they are not just concerned with getting people in the door to enjoy the game. They are concerned with influencing peoples behavior ONCE they get in the game to make RMT purchases. They want you to enjoy the game sure...BUT they DON'T want you to enjoy it TOO much if you aren't spending any money. In fact, thier incentive is to keep pushing you to make purchases as much as you can possibly tolerate without alienating you to the point where you will simply get frustrated and walk away. Pushing you right up to that line is how they maximize thier proffits. Those factors definately play into the design of the venue....sometimes in problematic ways. It's the same sort of tightrope that Casino's walk....and they use many of the same sort of psychological tricks to make that happen.
There is nothing inherently wrong or evil about that....as long as you know up front that's what your walking into. However it's alot tougher proposition for a Dev to not step over that line...then it is when designing a pure subscription based game with no cash shop.....
And frankly alot of people don't like F2P/Cash Shop games for the same reason they don't like Casino's. They don't want to go into an entertainment venue worrying about how much they have to spend....or how much play they can afford on thier budget ....or be aware of all the stupid little psych tricks the House has to keep you spending. They just want to relax and forget about all that...just enjoy the venue however much they feel like without needing to keep tabs on budget.
Basicaly in a subscription based game.... once you pay your entry fee you don't need to worry about anything but having fun.
In a F2P game... you need to worry about how much you are spending WHILE you are having fun. Nothing wrong with that if it doesn't detract from your fun....however for ALOT of people it simply does...PERIOD.
There are a lot of good things involved with every f2p game I've played. Quests are a stupid thing to talk about, though, because every mmo bases their quests on the same principles. As was said, there are a vast amount of mmogs out there... from RTS to action to RPG (casual and otherwise) to sports to tournement. There is just far more variety. I've enjoyed a lot more of F2P games than I have P2P games because the F2P ones don't ever let me down. The reason is because I don't have to pay for them. P2P games might give you a little week or so of a trial, but a lot of them beef that initial content up and fall flat right after that. If I can see myself reaching the end of a F2P game, I'll give them money because I like their product.
F2P forever until you feel like you need to take advantage of everything they have to offer... then pay for it. That's all there is to it. If you don't feel like you need to take advantage of every part of the game... then don't. The only thing you lost was time, but if you played it at all, you had fun so what's your problem? And since you're playing a game anyway... you aren't really doing anything important.
I do agree that it shouldn't only be cash-shops, but it should also include a monthly plan and little ways to obtain at least a small amount of shop cash without paying for it. Then no one can bitch.
I don't play an mmo for storyline quests, though, I save that for single player games.
I am neither for or against either model, as they have their own pros and cons (especiallys as having had to consult for business options for both). However, I have a single post to make, which is based on the definition of the terms pay-to-play and free-to-play.
Under the current guise of the industry, pay-to-play means a game which involves a monthly subscription in order to access the service provided, which allows you to play the game. Oppositely, free-to-play means a game in which you can play and access the service free of charge. Neither model takes into account any of the following: internet connection, amount of in game content, accessibility to in game content, etc.
My reason for bringing this up is this: people will say a free-to-play title really isn't free to play. My argument is that the service is free to use, and hence, free to play. However, due to mechanics or design choices, the game may be geared towards having players pay to enchance their means of progression, or to gain access to more content. As I said before, neither of these are included under the service itself. The same is true of many pay-to-play titles which include expansions, including World of Warcraft, old LOTRO, Final Fantasy XI, etc. These games charge for their service, but require extra payment for access to more content.
Now, carry on with the rest of your arguments. But please remember what "free-to-play" and "pay-to-play" actually mean, in the context of the industry.
Interesting take, one that I can't really argue against at this point. What would you make of the hybrid models though? We have two breeds showing up now. First you have the full sub games with cash-shops attached to them ranging from stuff from the get go STO or 25 dollar mounts for WoW. Then you have the hybrid kind of by design games showing up, mosty with turbine, LOTRO and DDO, where you can sub or do this F2P game thing but now EQ2 is getting in on it, though they are trying to this quasi separate but equal thing which I am skeptical would work. Separate but equal has never worked in the past... ever.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
You're right about one thing in this quote: you don't have to pay for anything in a F2P if you don't want to. However, it's been pointed out several times, within this thread even, that F2P game designers have every intention of making those cash shop purchases necessary. A good example, as I've been kicking the title around for a couple weeks, is Allods Online. They certainly don't force me to buy a damn thing. They do reduce the damage I do by a large percentage at level twenty, however, and there is conveniently an item I can buy in the cash shop to nearly revert this penalty. The same goes for the bags they sell, the kind you need for your inventory. You can't obtain them in-game, and they aren't necessary to play at all, but if you don't want to run back and forth between NPC's to off load your greys and complete quest objectives, or even play what would be considered the "end game", you're going to need to drop twenty dollars a bag (at the most) for five bag slots. That's a hundred bucks for full-slot bags, which would almost buy me seven months of a subscription MMO that comes with all of the bells and whistles. I'm not even getting into the other miscellaneous buff items and potions they sell in their cash shop, all of which are as necessary as the player makes them, but they exist as so the designers can make your "free" experience worse, in hopes that you'll shell out some money to get your damage output back to normal, or to unlock abilities otherwise incapable of being used, when you get frustrated enough.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
Nesrie,
I'm a little leery of those just because of the amount of temptation it gives the Dev's to try to squeeze money out of the subcription players in the cash shop ON TOP of thier subscription fee.
I'm a long time player of LOTRO and I was very upset by Turbines move... that's NOT the service I signed up to play when I purchased the game. They say it won't really effect the current game play experience.... but we'll see what actualy happens when the rubber meets the road.
Ultimately it's going to come down to how much the RMT model intrudes on the game-play experience of the regular subscription based player. I think it's POSSIBLE for a Dev to create a model that doesn't.... but that requires ALOT of self-discipline and good judgement on the Dev...and not just the actual designers but the people making the business decisions at those companies which influence design.... and lets be frank, MOST of those people simply don't have the judgement and self-discipline as well as long term thinking to refrain from going for the quick cash grab.
We see way too many executives willing to trash thier brands reputation for a quick one-quarter proffit boost outside of the entertainment venue...... do we really doubt that the same people will behave differently when thet run a Development House?
Necessity, who is the mother of invention. - Plato
Things do not change, just because... and especially in business. People will stick with the know, rather than risk the unknown, often to their own folly. The fact that we are now seeing a rather large movement supporting F2P in the western market is proof enough that business believes that it MUST (not optional) change, or else lose out.
F2P is becoming mainstream... and in doing so, it is opening gaming to a larger audience. There will always be a hardcore P2P group, and companies will provide games for them. However, the larger, more casual F2P group will no longer be excluded from the market, and in doing so, companies will profit.
To a certain exent, this is similar to the move made by WoW. They change the target demographic, and in doing so were able to grow the market from 100's of thousands to millions... There is no going back from that, just like there is no going back from this.
You can sugar coat F2P all you want but the fact is that concept of a free game with a cash shop means that the developers have to make the core gameplay painful enough to compel people to spend money. That might mean leveling up takes forever without buying xp boosters or quests take longer without the sword of +10 pwning from the cash store or some other mechanic that makes the game "not fun". The game's continued existence relies on them intentionally gimping the game to get people to fork over money.
I'd much rather play a subscription game where the developers have to focus on making the game as enjoyable as possible to get people to resubscribe every month.
I like your comparison, at least I think it was you that used a casino comparison. While I fall onto one side as far as preference goes, I don't have an issue with the mis-named free to play so much as I am a big picture sort of person. I look at the game, assume that I will like it, look at the price of getting into the game in its entirity and then wind up walking away before starting mostly because of that. I don't really play games I don't intend to get the most out of. I am not that bored. and have plenty of other things to do. That's just me of course and realize others take different approaches.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
/sign
* I read most of what Jon Wood writes
* He needs more bullet points though
This argument will finally end when no self-respecting game publisher will allow a developer to release a game using the subscription payment business model. The remaining subscription games will be indie-studio small-fry, nibbling plankton in the pond.
Much like most publishers currently don't let the developers innovate, simply because unfamiliar design choices and features confuse the majority of would-be players, who are perfectly happy to go back to something familiar and simple when confused.
Regardless of what we as players think, the industry trend is against us, and the reason is one word only: money.
Disagree with underlined. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but don't forget that Greed is the father.
This shift in recent years isn't necessarily indicative of a choice between profit or failure - where business is concerned, it can just as easily indicate a choice between profit or potentially higher profit. And when looking for profit, a business could hardly be blamed for deciding to take a pre-existing game only in need of tweaking and translation, set upon a psychological model that encourages spending beyond a standard subscription amount.
But that doesn't make it "necessity" in the least.
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs:
That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
If a game pulls in large numbers of non-paying users who enjoy themselves and also see lots of others doing so, they'll stick around longer. And that raises the probability they'll reach into their pocketbooks.
I think the above quote makes a good point. The smart f2p companies that are capable of making a game rich and detailed enough to hold peoples' interest longterm will think like this. They will also work very hard not to get a reputation as greedy bastards by ramping up difficulty and stifling xp gain in order to sell more cashshop items.
The stupid or 'get in, get the money, get out fast' companies are the ones who give all of these games their terrible reputation (except for the Korean grinder companies who honestly just haven't figured out that people in other countries don't like that style of play).
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
In addition to the many replies in retort of Richards I leave this :
We are not seeing a industry shift towards the F2P model, what we are seeing is more start-ups figuring out that they too can produce a Free to play title and people will actually pay threw the nose to win. There are only two major p2p titles that are going f2p and neither of them would do so if the game wasn't allready in a decline. So the over-the-top statements can stop, the industry is not shifting more towards free to play.
The sky is not falling, I'm sure the long-time mmo gamers here remember the large influx of Indie Dev titles we had 2-3 years ago, perhaps only one or two lasted longer than a few months. The same thing will happen with the F2P market, it will become over-saturated with poor quality titles, larger dev teams will continue to avoid the model for all but their declining titles, and ultimately it will collapse.
All F2P games require spending a lot of money to reach high levels
This may or may not be true, but that not the point. All players should start with exactly the same opportunities ingame, and never should a portion of the Player base be able to acquire items or ingame currency from out of game sources such as MT, Cash Shops, or Stores. Just because a Store or Cash Shop is available to all does not mean all will benefit from it, therefore it unbalances the game in fundamental ways. All items and gold should be acquired through normal gameplay, no other way.
The quests in F2P games consist mainly of "kill 10 rats" quests, except it's more like "kill 100 rats"
This is not always true. Many F2P games have very good quest systems with unique and challenging quests.
Most F2P games are rushed into America, resulting in broken English translations
Not always true either, some have very good translations. That's not a problem for me even if the translation is less than perfect. The World has been dealing with having to learn English because we Americans say they must, it's time for us Americans to stop being lazy and learn other languages frankly.
Cash shops encourage developers to work only on cash shop content
Yes for the most part this will be true, or become true the longer a MMO is available with a Cash Shop. This is basic human "business nature", basic capitalism. Deny it all you want but I know better because I have seen it not just in MMOs but everywhere in real life.
A subscription based MMO with NO Cash Shop/Store/MT avoids this because the focus of design remains with a drive to make the entire MMO better to better attract and entice Players to subscribe.
Those are my answers to the questions posed.
It is time the SUITs were kicked out of MMO gaming, they do not care about the games the way the Players AND the Developers themselves do, they only care about profits, and any MMO designed for profit first is garbage as far as I am concerned. Quality design for all Players must be the primary design drive/focus, and equality for ingame opportunity and activity for all Players, or I want nothing to do with the MMO in question. If the SUITs stay I am gone as a customer.
I will not play or purchase any MMO F2P or P2P with a Cash Shop, a "Store", or Microtransactions of any kind or type(including PLEX).
MMORPG.COM ... STOP TRYING TO CONVINCE US F2P IS A GOOD IDEA. I PERSONALLY CONSIDER IT INSULTING FOR YOU TO EVEN SUGGEST IT!
I am the Player that wonders... "What the %#*& just happened?!"
...............
"I Believe... There should be NO financial connection or portals between the Real World and the Virtual in MMOs. "
__Ever Present Cockroach of the MMO Verses__
...scurrying to and fro... .munching on bits of garbage... always under foot...
Yay for more F2P rubbish, come back for another article next week! Quality site!
Hmmm, I wonder if Beau's 5 will address the 'All F2P games are crap' misconception, unless of course it isn't a misconception at all but just the truth.
I'm afraid when F2P games are stacked up against subscription based games they just simply cannot compete on quality of gameplay, I can't put my finger on exactly why it is, maybe it is simply down to the subscription game developers not having to develope the gameplay mechanics and content with the goal being to drive revenue growth at the 'micro' level, in effect they are free to design the game for fun.
However, I'm a realist, it is obvious that there is a growing trend for 'Western' MMO's that are failing to adopt the F2P model in an effort to cling to life. I'll be the first to admit that with LOTRO and now EQ2 going F2P these are good quality games with lots of fun content. I will be watching to see if these games manage to stay fun after the transition to F2P or if the devs end up forced to slice and dice the fun out of the game in an effort to sell it back to us in bite sized chunks. In effect butchering these games and turning them into the 'Asian F2P grinders' that are so terrible.
But you know, even in this age of F2P, I would still opt for the subscription method that these so called F2P games offer, I'm more interested to see if as a 'subscriber' to one of these games, will my gameplay suffer as a result of the move to F2P. Lets put it this way, if I find myself playing LOTRO as a subscriber and I'm excluded from content, find the need to buy potions, put at a disadvantage in PvP or find the need to use the ingame rip off stores then I'll be cancelling as quick as you like.
In effect, whilst they offer me the ability to still subscribe without affecting my gameplay then fine, as soon as a gameplay becomes infected and diluted thanks to F2P then I'm out of there.
Do you lay awake at night worrying that some people might not like a F2P game. I dont care for them. No matter how much opinion and bending the facts you do to support your opinions you are not going to change anyone's mind about F2P.
Give it a rest.
I know you like them, I don't. Why do you care ?? You remind me of politicians who try to demonize anyone who does not agree with them.
As was stated before why dont you pick a free to play game and give us facts about it. Quit using a broad brush. Be specific. Maybe pick a F2P game each week and show us with examples why it is so good. Give us examples of a f2p game that you think proves they would worth playing. Use facts.
The only anger I see is on your part Wolf. BTW, Palin isn't concerned with over-generalization. The concern is with selective, not objective, focus.
OH..WAKE UP CALL...Richard is the free zone writer, not the PTP writer.
There are many, *cough* * Aion* that have thier share of kill way more than 100 rats..one is get 150 items from mobs in a specific area...not all mobs will dropthe item so the total is more like 300 kills after which there are 2 more pieces to get through. All this with gankers who often have so many levels on you that you can hardly hit them.
Botome line is: If its something you enjoy and look forward to getting into each night its a winner..ftp or ptp. If its not, move on.
A hard line towards FTP,PTP, people from certain counties,religions, sex is a waste of time that will result in one missing out on much of life.
Once again, focusing on who doesn't like F2P rather than writing for who likes F2P. Why not pick a F2P game or publisher each week and write about it? Wouldn't that be a pleasant experience for you to later share with your audience?